What happened?
This Saturday afternoon, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of Valparaíso referred to the precautionary measure of preventive detention that was decreed against the two accused as alleged perpetrators of the forest fires in Valparaíso in the month of February: a firefighter and an official from the Conaf.
The regional prosecutor, Claudia Perivancichdeclared that she was “satisfied” with the court’s resolution, considering the “strong investigation that has been carried out,” and pointed out as one of the motivations for setting the fires a possible “economic” edge.
All about the Valparaíso Fire
Possible “economic motivation”
“What we have are elements that show that they actually agreed, in advance, perform a behavior of this type when the weather conditions were adequate to ensure the possibility of a fire of serious proportions,” the pursuer said to the rule out any psychiatric condition of the accused.
Regarding the motivations, ruling out a possible pyromania of the accused, prosecutor Perivancich spoke of possible economic benefits thanks to the fires, since this way the accused Conaf brigade member could keep that job for longer by extend the “fire season.”
THE LAST
“According to the information that he (the accused firefighter) receives on his shift from the second accused Pinto, who acts as a Conaf brigade member, in order for for him it was a benefit that they were actually carried out, that a multiplicity of fires took place, to account for the fact that I would then have a guaranteed job as a Conaf brigade member“explained the prosecutor.
Preventive detention for the accused
It should be noted that the Valparaíso Guarantee Court decreed preventive detention for the former firefighter. Francisco Mondaca22 years old, who was discharged after his arrest, and for Franco Pinto31 years old, who at the time of the events of which he is accused was a Conaf official.
Furthermore, a investigation period of 180 days and the transfer of both to Santiago 1 Preventive Detention Center.
Regarding this measure, the defender of Mondaca, Alejandra Sabaindicated that he was dissatisfied, since his client “has collaborated substantially in clarifying the facts and has irreproachable previous conduct.”
“My client provided a lot of background information, he declared, waived his right to remain silent. “She provided information that is related to her address (…) she also provided information that is related to the possible participation of the other person represented,” the lawyer added.
